You are here: / / DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER...

DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the restaurant/bar’s (Hacienda’s) motion for summary judgment in this Dram Shop Act action was properly granted. Plaintiff, a passenger in a car driven by Behler, was injured when the driver struck a guardrail. The driver, who was under 21, had been served alcohol at Hacienda. General Obligations Law (GOL) 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act) prohibits serving alcohol to persons under 21. The Second Department held there is a knowledge element of GOL 11-101 and Hacienda demonstrated it’s employee did not know the driver was under 21:

In 1983, the Legislature supplemented the Dram Shop Act by adding General Obligation Law § 11-100, which applies to any provider unlawfully furnishing alcoholic beverages to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for minors. Pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1), it is unlawful to furnish an alcoholic beverage to any “person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one years” … . “[L]iability under General Obligations Law § 11-100 may be imposed only on a person who knowingly causes intoxication by furnishing alcohol to (or assisting in the procurement of alcohol for) persons known or reasonably believed to be underage. While [General Obligations Law § ] 11-101 does not explicitly refer to knowledge, that same requirement must be inferred because the legislative history makes plain that section 11-100 was intended to parallel the Dram Shop Act” … . …

Hacienda established through the submission of the deposition testimony of its bartender that it did not have knowledge or reason to believe that the driver was under 21 years of age when it served alcoholic beverages to him. Ferber v Olde Erie Brew Pub & Grill, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03827, Second Dept 5-30-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE FEDERAL OFFENSE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FIREARM BE OPERABLE BUT THE NEW YORK OFFENSE DOES; THEREFORE THE FEDERAL OFFENSE IS NOT A PREDICATE OFFENSE FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES; THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER ON DEFENDANTS’ ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV), DRIVEN BY DEFENDANTS’ DECEDENT, WHO WAS INTOXICATED, WHEN THE ATV CRASHED INTO A TREE; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE IS NO COMMON LAW “NEGLIGENT PROVISION OF ALCOHOL TO A MINOR” CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST ADDRESSED IN PLAINITIFFS’ REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONLY TWO OF THE 19 PLAINTIFFS RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, PETITION ALLEGING UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT... DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER...